 |
Disclaimer webinfo@ilo.org |
ILCCR: Examination of individual case concerning Convention No. 111, Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958 Bangladesh (ratification: 1972) Published: 2007Description:(ILCCR Individual Observation) Convention:C111 Country:(Bangladesh) Session of the Conference:96 Document:22 Subject classification: Non-discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Subject classification: Women Subject: Equality of Opportunity and Treatment Display the document in: French Spanish Document No. (ilolex): 132007BGD111 A Government representative quoted from the Bangladeshi Constitution, the preamble of which mentioned that the fundamental aim of the State was to realize a society free from exploitation - a society in which the rule of law, fundamental human rights and freedom, equality and justice, political and social, would be secured for all citizens. Article 10 of the Constitution stated that "steps shall be taken to ensure participation of women in all spheres of life", while article 19(1) stated that the "State shall endeavour to ensure equality of opportunity to all citizens". Furthermore, article 28(1) clearly prohibited discrimination, stating that the "State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth", and article 28(2) stated that "women shall have equal rights with men in all spheres of the State and of public life". The Bangladesh Labour Law of 2006, which was a result of tripartite consultation, contained special provisions to ensure opportunities and rights of women. It also made all citizens eligible for employment and equal pay, irrespective of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth. The Labour Law was in conformity with Convention No. 111. Turning to the comment of the Committee of Experts, he noted that the first comment required reconsideration as there were sufficient legislative bans on discrimination in employment and occupation in Bangladesh. Regarding the second comment on participation of women in education and employment, the Constitution stated that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in respect of employment of office in service of the Republic, and this was reflected in the Labour Law. The Law also permitted affirmative action in favour of women. In Bangladesh, girls enjoyed free education up to higher secondary level, and the Government was considering extending this to university undergraduate level. In addition to normal facilities, female students had specific quotas for entering educational institutions and jobs. The Government ran programmes where female workers were separately enrolled for development of skills, education and economic empowerment. With respect to the Committee of Experts' comment on discrimination in equal access to employment, as well as the range of occupations, he could state that women in Bangladesh were not barred from entering any profession. Bangladesh's success in women's empowerment through microcredit was such that over 97 per cent of borrowers were women. As to the third comment of the Committee of Experts concerning violence against women, including sexual harassment at work, the laws were unusually strict. The Suppression of Violence against Women and Children Act, 2000, was significant. Under this law, 42 special tribunals had been established in 33 districts, headed by senior judges. The Act provided severe punishment including life imprisonment for rape, abduction, dowry violence and trafficking. The Disabled Welfare Act, 2001, ensured equality of opportunity to disabled persons without gender discrimination. The Government had also established the Speedy Trial Tribunal 2002 to handle cases relating to violence against women and children, while the Women Convicted in Jail Privilege Act, 2006, provided skills to women convicts for reintegration after release. His Government believed that the Committee of Experts' third comment should have concluded the opposite of what it stated and was so general as to make it impossible to determine what would be a satisfactory answer. Finally, he urged the Committee to consider the level of economic development of a country when its case was being examined. The Employer members said that the case of Bangladesh in connection with this Convention was of great concern to the employers. The importance of the Convention resided in the fact that, apart from its ratification, it was mentioned in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which included the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation. In 2000 the literacy rate in Bangladesh was 54.6 and 42.5 per cent for men and women, respectively. In the two year period from 1995 to 1997, women represented only 8.57 per cent of the labour force in the public sector and independent organizations of the formal private sector. Two observations were made. Firstly, with regard to the prohibition of discrimination as contained in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, although this prohibition was included in the Constitution, there was no law or provision in the Labour Code to enforce it. The Committee of Experts had requested the Government to include this prohibition in the reform, to examine the text before its adoption and, if necessary, to request ILO technical assistance. Secondly, they highlighted the low participation of women in employment and education. This had been confirmed by the United Nations report of 2005. The information provided by the Government on law and practice on this matter was scant. As the Committee had requested, the Government had to supply more detailed information with regard to the specific action taken to eliminate discrimination against women and to promote their access to education and vocational training and employment. The Employer members added that the July 2004 report of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women had reported the existence of widespread violence against women, including sexual harassment in the workplace. The Government had to adopt effective measures against sexual harassment, by means of laws, policies and procedures, with the participation of workers' and employers' organizations, and punish such practices. The Worker members recalled the three points made by the Committee of Experts and stressed that only when the country's name was added to the list of potential cases did the Government provide the additional information required. According to this information, the new Labour Code would no longer allow discrimination at the workplace or in wages, secondary education would be guaranteed for girls and sexual harassment would disappear. It was indispensable that the Government provide further information in order to evaluate any progress made. The situation was supposed to have evolved but its description did not seem credible. In fact, equal opportunities for women existed neither in employment nor in education nor in vocational training. Forty-three per cent of women worked in agriculture, the large majority of whom received no remuneration as they work in family enterprises, a sector where workers enjoyed no legal protection. Apart from the garment sector, where they accounted for 80 per cent of the workforce, women were almost totally absent from the formal sector. In Bangladesh, women were subjected to three types of serious discrimination: poor working conditions in the garment sector were actually worse for women; women could only find work in sectors where labour law was not applied, such as agriculture and export processing zones; and maternity leave was not granted. According to a study carried out in 2000, their wages were only 58 per cent of men's, partly because they did not have access to skilled jobs. In 1997, 32 per cent of women workers earned less than the minimum wage as compared with 6 per cent of men. The situation was made worse by the fact that women found it difficult to get training, which was a preserve of men. To earn the minimum wage in the garment sector, namely US$23 per month, women worked six days out of seven, sometimes up to 12 hours a day. The Worker members referred to the tripartite agreement signed on 12 June 2006, which guaranteed many rights, among which was the right to a letter of engagement, maternity leave, weekly time off and regulation of overtime. The Government had to ensure the implementation of the agreement and that women obtained their rights. The Worker members concluded by stressing that women workers in Bangladesh were among the most exploited workers, and had neither protection nor rights. The Worker member of Bangladesh stated that discrimination of any sort, whether in respect of employment, or any other fundamental socio-economic right, had roots lying deep in the very core of society. To eradicate it, therefore, its root causes needed to be addressed. He acknowledged that although it was prohibited by law, gender discrimination still existed in his country, for two basic reasons. The first reason was socio-economic in nature: although Bangladesh had had, at the outset of nationhood, a large state-owned industrial sector, its industries were gradually privatized, beginning in 1975. Sixty per cent of these industries collapsed, whereas the rest of the private sector failed to prosper, in spite of measures by the Government to foster its growth. Bangladesh hence remained an underdeveloped and largely agrarian nation. He observed that, according to a recent survey by the Bangladesh Institute of Labour Studies, 45 per cent of the working-age population of 80.8 million were unemployed, and of the unemployed 35 per cent were women. The fierce competition for jobs resulting from such massive unemployment posed a barrier to women's entry into the labour market. The second cause of gender discrimination was socio-cultural in nature. Though secularism had been a guiding principle of the nation since its foundation, politicians had exploited religion and religiosity for their gain, so that society was still saddled with traditional values deeming women's proper place to be in the household, not the workplace. He maintained that legislation was important to overcoming these obstacles but was not, in itself, sufficient. Changing deeply rooted social values would require no less than a cultural movement. In this regard, he stated that the political transition his country was undergoing gave rise to the possibility of a thorough socio-cultural change which, he hoped, would overturn those values contributing to women's discrimination. Efforts to promote women's employment through legislation still played a vital role; nevertheless, he expressed regret, that the new labour law - apart from sections on maternity benefits and working hours for women - contained no such provisions. He stated that the present Government was in fact an interim one, and had taken many steps to eradicate corruption and poor governance. It had also taken the initiative of ensuring the payment of minimum wages for garment workers, as agreed upon by a tripartite negotiation, and had enacted many new measures to fulfil its mission. He welcomed the Government's stated determination to free the trade union movement of political influences and called upon it to issue an ordinance on the recruitment and employment of a minimum quota of underprivileged women. The Employer member of Bangladesh stated that several recently published studies confirmed that poverty had been reduced in Bangladesh, primarily through growth in the service sector and such labour-intensive sectors as food processing and footwear. This, in turn, had led to increased employment opportunities for women: 54 per cent of the new jobs created had gone to women, and that proportion was 80 per cent in the ready-made garment sector. Several press articles had highlighted a number of good employment practices to address gender discrimination, including the adoption of new approaches to generating employment and the collection of data disaggregated by sex. Problems still existed, of course, but these were in decline. The main cause of Bangladesh's economic problems, he remarked, was a governance deficit in the labour market, and only by reducing poverty could the problem of gender discrimination be meaningfully addressed. He maintained that Bangladesh's efforts to reduce poverty and empower women had been acknowledged worldwide, as demonstrated by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Mohammed Yunus. The Committee of Experts ought to have noted such information, instead of relying on secondary information in formulating its comments. He stated that he had served on the commission tasked with drafting the new Labour Code and that, in the process of the law's preparation, every effort had been made to incorporate the views of all groups by issuing public notices to different organizations. In spite of this, many of the groups solicited failed to reply, and the issue of gender discrimination did not figure prominently in the replies of those that did. Nevertheless, trade unions, women's non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and human rights NGOs were all closely associated with and contributed to the drafting of the new law. He remarked that a new permanent law commission, headed by a former Chief Justice, had been created, and had the authority to receive complaints of gender discrimination. The Office ought to inquire as to whether any complaints had thus far been received. He concluded by stressing that the fundamental issue was whether, on balance, the problems related to gender discrimination were escalating or in decline. The latest information available demonstrated that they were in decline. The Worker member of Japan stated that the Committee of Experts had in recent years, regularly been issuing observations on Bangladesh's implementation of this Convention. Observations were issued in 2000, 2003, 2005, and again this year - with a double footnote. The contents of the comments were almost always the same, as the reports submitted by the Government contained very little or no information, demonstrating a clear lack of progress in the Convention's implementation. Although a new Labour Code was reportedly enacted, she remarked, it was shocking that nobody, including the Committee of Experts and the members of this Committee, had a precise notion of its provisions. She expressed concern moreover that from all available indications, the new law excluded certain groups of workers from the right to association and contained no provisions to promote gender equality. She strongly urged the Government to provide a copy of the new legislation, translated into English, so that the Committee of Experts could examine its conformity with the Convention's requirements. She stated that, according to an analysis by her colleague, Tomasz Wojcik, 58.3 per cent of Asia's population were covered by the Convention. The people of Bangladesh should be able to count themselves among those enjoying the protections afforded by the Convention; unfortunately, such was not the case. She maintained that the present case was typical of others marked by a lack of progress, and brought to mind the familiar phrase "ratification is one thing, and implementation another". She called upon the Government to fulfil its obligations under the Convention by revising the law on the basis of tripartite consultations - while ensuring that the social partners' contributions were incorporated to the greatest extent possible - and reporting fully to the ILO supervisory bodies. The Government member of Egypt referred to the statement made by the Government representative of Bangladesh, which gave information on the new Labour Code promulgated in the past months. She reiterated that some time was needed for the Government to apply the Code, and remedy the situation from the practical side. The ILO could also provide technical assistance and advice to the Government in that regard. She reiterated that non-discrimination in the employment of men and women in the labour market was one of the achievements that would help raise the level of economic development, which was an aim shared by all countries. She concluded that she hoped that the Committee would take into consideration the statement made by the Government representative of Bangladesh on his country's efforts to fulfil the requests made in the observation of the Committee of Experts. The Government could communicate to the ILO a copy of the new Labour Code. The Worker member of Greece stated that he was dazzled by the picture drawn by the Government: workers benefiting from 16 weeks maternity leave; compulsory schooling for girls up to secondary school; judicial sanctions for violence against women. This picture was obviously far from the observations of the Committee of Experts. The Committee's information was perhaps out of date and the Government had perhaps accomplished great improvements and discrimination had actually been abolished. If this progress was true, the Government should be congratulated, but if the progress was only theoretical, the Government should be asked to appear once again before this Committee in order to explain the situation at the risk of having to hear that it had not told the truth. The Government member of Belarus thanked the Government for its clear and well-argued presentation. He welcomed the 2006 adoption of the new Labour Code, the provisions of which would improve the country's labour situation and, as such, played an important role in the implementation of the Convention. He stated that, in addition to legal amendments, other programmes to increase women's participation in the workforce had been implemented as well. Of these, the microcredit programme in particular was an excellent model for the economic empowerment of women. He observed that the issue of sexual harassment was a highly topical one. It existed everywhere, and in addressing the subject care must be taken to also consider such matters as the way of life and cultural norms of the country concerned. He expressed surprise that the Committee of Experts had failed to take note of the effective use of the courts in tackling the problem of sexual harassment. The Committee should fully consider all the available information and be more attentive in drafting its comments. He stated that the Government ought to be commended for its efforts. Assistance should be extended to allow it to increase its institutional and programme implementation capacities. The Government member of Malaysia welcomed the Government's commitment to eliminating the practice of discrimination in its country, as demonstrated by the new Labour Code and several programmes to implement the provisions of the Convention. Such measures deserved the recognition of the entire Committee. He trusted that the Government would continue to fully respect and implement the Convention, and expressed the hope that it would continue to engage in constructive social dialogue as a means of doing so. The Government member of Cuba stated that his delegation had noted that the Government of Bangladesh had recently adopted a new Labour Code which demonstrated the will of the Government to make progress in the implementation of labour standards. It was appropriate in such cases that this new document be presented to the Committee of Experts for evaluation. If there was any disagreement as to the conformity of the new law with the Convention, it would be appropriate that the Government consider the possibility of availing itself of the technical assistance of the ILO. This procedure was in line with the promotion of cooperation between the parties, in order to achieve the adoption of legislation and the application of laws which reflect the content and spirit of ILO Conventions. The Government member of China stated that the principle of equality was embodied in the Constitution and new Labour Code. Taking note of the women's microcredit programme in particular, he remarked that the Government had also made genuine efforts to combat discrimination and apply the Convention in practice. He asserted that, as Bangladesh remained an underdeveloped country, its economic development was crucial to overcoming the challenges it faced in implementing the Convention. He concluded by encouraging the ILO and the international community to provide assistance to the Government in its efforts to promote gender equality at work. The Government representative thanked all speakers for their comments. With respect to the comments made by the Worker member of Greece, he clarified that the new Labour Code provided for maternity leave for a period of eight weeks before birth, as well as a period of eight weeks after - 16 weeks in total. The new Labour Code, he stressed, was enacted after considerable discussion with the social partners and was available in Bengali, and would soon be translated into English. He maintained that he had not intended to convey the impression that discrimination and sexual harassment had been completely eradicated in Bangladesh: clearly, those problems still existed. Nevertheless, considerable progress had been made, and the Government would continue to strive towards the complete elimination of discrimination in the workplace. He stated that the purpose of the Committee's deliberations was not to "score points", but rather to work together towards the faithful implementation of ratified Conventions. With this common aim in mind, he suggested the possibility of establishing some mechanism for enhanced information sharing amongst the social partners. He concluded by emphasizing that the Government faced substantial limitations with regard to resources and institutional capacity. The Government needed time to overcome these limitations and trusted that, in this respect, it had the understanding of the members of the Committee. The Employer members thanked the Government for the information supplied and requested that the progress made by Bangladesh with regard to the application of the Convention be evaluated. They said that they considered non-discrimination and equality of opportunity to be very important issues. Ever since the adoption of the Declaration of Philadelphia, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, employers had been deeply committed to equality of opportunity. The Government had indicated that it had apparently made progress and this had to be corroborated through an analysis by the Committee of Experts. Bangladesh could request ILO technical assistance and had to cooperate with the ILO. They pointed out that the collaboration of employers' and workers' organizations was also important. The formulation of the Labour Code was part of that collaboration and its application also required the cooperation of workers and employers. In conclusion, they thanked the Government of Bangladesh for the information provided and indicated that the relevant information on the progress made with the new Labour Code had to be submitted to the Committee of Experts for examination. The Worker members expressed their doubts with respect to the Government's declaration. The picture described was too good to be true. The Government wanted to show that everything had changed: no more problems concerning freedom of association; a new labour law prohibiting all discrimination; compulsory schooling for all girls and no violence against women. After having considered proposing this case for a special paragraph, the Worker members decided to grant the Government one year to provide specific information to support its statement. In the case where a report did not allow, on its own, for an evaluation of the situation in practice, a direct contacts mission would be necessary.
ConclusionsThe Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative, as well as the discussion that took place thereafter. The Committee noted that the Committee of Experts had commented on the need for a specific legislative ban on discrimination, the low participation of women in education and employment, and the widespread violence against women, including sexual harassment. The Committee noted the information provided by the Government concerning the constitutional provisions, laws, policies and programmes in place to address discrimination against women, improve their access to education and employment, and prevent and punish violence against women. It also noted the information provided concerning the recent adoption of the Labour Code, and the programme on women's empowerment through micro-credit and micro-finance. While noting the Government's expression of its commitment to promote gender equality and to eliminate discrimination against women, the Committee observed that serious gender-based inequalities continued to prevail in the labour market, as well as violence and sexual harassment against women. It expressed the firm hope that in the revision of the Labour Code provisions specifically prohibiting discrimination in employment and occupation had been adopted. The Committee urged the Government to submit the legislation, once it had been translated, to the Office in time for it to be examined in detail by the Committee of Experts at its session in 2007. The Committee also asked the Government to involve workers' and employers' organizations closely in the implementation of the Labour Code. The Committee stressed the importance of addressing social and cultural traditions regarding the role of women in society and resulting occupational segregation, in order to promote gender equality in practice. The Committee called on the Government to take active measures to ensure that women have a real choice of a wider range of jobs and occupations, including through broadening their educational and employment opportunities. Concerning the issue of sexual harassment at work, the Committee requested the Government to provide specific information on the impact of the existing legislation to prevent and address this specific form of sex discrimination, as well as any other measures taken or envisaged in this regard, including information on the effectiveness of the dispute resolution mechanisms in place to address complaints of sexual harassment. The Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information, in reply to all the comments of the Committee of Experts, as well as the information requested above in its report due this year. The Committee also urged the Government to accept an ILO high-level mission to assist with the effective application of the Convention in law and practice.The Government representative thanked the social partners for their comments and interest in the case. He also expressed appreciation that they had not called for the case to be placed in a special paragraph of the Committee's report. With regard to the proposal that a high-level mission should be undertaken to his country, he indicated that his Government was fully taken up with electoral reform at the present time, with a view to the adoption of the necessary legislation and the holding of fair and free elections in 2009. The process was extremely time-consuming and he was therefore not sure that the Government would be able to receive a high-level mission during that period. That would not prevent communication between the Government and the ILO through its office in the country, especially in relation to the legislative process. Moreover, all the necessary information would be provided so that the Committee of Experts could examine developments in the case. The Worker members emphasized that it was for the Office to decide with the Government when the mission should take place. The mission had an important role to fulfil in assessing the situation and in doing so could help to prepare the ground for the next Government. The Employer members recalled that they had indicated their willingness to support any type of measure which would provide a basis for improving the application of Convention No. 111 in Bangladesh. They therefore supported the Committee's conclusions and the proposal for a high-level mission. They left it up to the Government and the Office to decide on the most appropriate time to carry out this mission. |
| ILO Home | NORMES home | ILOLEX home | Universal Query | NATLEX |
|
Disclaimer webinfo@ilo.org |